Suggested Experiment: Results of Trimming Fan Leaves

[papaduc]

I'd just like to say, with regards to the whole training variable... it throws up an interesting question, and possible group.

Think about this:

Bassy made the point that a defoliated plant takes longer in veg to catch up.

The idea is the defoliated plant grows stronger branches as a result which provide better foundation for bud growth later on.

There's also the issue of non defol' plants growing taller in veg due to this, and shading out those non defol'ed plants...

Well, the idea behind defoliation is that it's a high yield technique.
In this side by side test we're questioning/proving it's value as a technique.

So... why limit ourselves to a control group of non defoliated, un-trained plants to test against?

Think about this a minute.

Defoliated plants grow slower, therefore shorter.... so, why would we say, for example, that we couldn't supercrop the other side to keep them the same size?

Because it's an unfair advantage over defoliating?

If that's the case, then it's a big black mark against defoliating vs pinching as a yield/efficiency boosting method. Know what I mean?

If you use pinching as a means of keeping one group back to the same level as the next, and it then turns out that the pinched plant, with all it's foliage, grows sturdier and better and ultimately yields more in the same time frame, I think that in itself is an interesting result and therefore should be allowed.

I think the main question is fairness. If defol is a high yield technique, there should be no tangible gain by pinching, or any other technique, provided there is no extra veg time/light/nutes etc allocated to either group.

I think some elements of flexibility will add variability also, and others will just throw up interesting results.

 

[Payaso]

Okay guys...

I really appreciate the time and thought ALL OF YOU have put into this - it really warms my heart and makes me feel good about helping this site when I see so many members eager to help each other GROW.

So today is the day I will condense the suggested ideas into one coalescence of the subject and post up a structure to follow.

Imagine great billowing clouds of cannabis, a plate of brownies and Thanksgiving leftovers in the frig'...in other words I have no excuses I will get this done...

The only thing I ask out of respect for all of you is that we keep it down to a dull roar now that we have all submitted our ideas... let's stop discussion until you start ripping me apart for my condensation... I will attempt to address EVERYONE's concerns. I have no favorites here at all, believe me.

Peace...

 

[Chevy cHaze]

Bassy, great input, but maybe your approach is a little too complicated...
My suggestion would be:

- two clones from the same mum, same # of nodes and app. same amount of foliage, equally developped roots ( cut if necessary to match them)
- same pots, same everything, from nutes to feeding schedule, training etc...EVERYTHING.
- both under one and the same light in the same room aligned under a good reflector and enough room between them so there is absolutely no overshadowing.


Please correct me, but the more stuff you add, like clones AND seeds, the more variables you will have to deal with, and the less valid the results will be.

Also, a run from seed is an abolute no go. It would render all data gathered irrelelevant. each plant will be a diff. pheno, allowing seeds in this test is basically the biggest variable you can add to the setup in my opinion.

looking forward to this my friends !

 

[Bassy59]

@papaduc,

Since I'm horrible with multi quotes I'm going to just list the responses in order.

1. Seeds, I did say a larger plant count would be needed. This is to reduce the variance somewhat and still allow those that are wanting to do this but also don't have clones presently available.

2. Raising a plant will still never work. The mid section and lower will always be getting shaded by the density of the plant right next to it.

3. This is two-fold in the basis of my statement. First, this discourages CFL growers. CFL's don't have the penetration for optimal growth plain & simple. Secondly, most vertical growers are giving so much more watts per sq ft, it goes against the basis of limited light/plants/area available idea. Much like outdoors the sun penetrates naturally top to bottom well over the recognized 5k foot-candles minimum for proper plant growth. When a plant is say 4 foot wide, but has two vertical bulbs, one on each side, say 1k watts, that penetration will give a combined 20k foot candles of light vs at the middle of the plant vs a horizontal giving 5k at the bottom of the plant. (using the standard hps light-depth chart. In other words furthest growth from bulbs is receiving 4x the light power. Less real benefit for defoliating.

I won't respond to 8 & 9 as those are your arguments and opinion. Not without merit, and arguing to flip the same days is just a setup to purposely fail the veg defoliator. It's got argument both ways. 9 was based on same training methods.

10 is to prevent either grower from not distributing proper amounts of light top to their plants. You can argue till your blue in the face with a 6 foot tall tree grower under horizontal. He still won't accept a light depth chart and understand he wasted far more valuable veg time going so tall. They won't understand that bottom three feet of plant that did nothing was a total waste of veg time. YES! this is where defoliation comes into it's own! That's the whole point! Top to bottom, fully useable good bud. All within the greatest range of the given light. That further explains why outdoors, with the sun being just slightly stronger than a 1k light, penetration top to bottom of a 20 foot tall bush will produce top to bottom.

We are NOT in nature! We are deceiving our plants and manipulating them to think they are in nature the moment we step indoors.

 

[Bassy59]

Bassy, great input, but maybe your approach is a little too complicated...
My suggestion would be:

- two clones from the same mum, same # of nodes and app. same amount of foliage, equally developped roots ( cut if necessary to match them)
- same pots, same everything, from nutes to feeding schedule, training etc...EVERYTHING.
- both under one and the same light in the same room aligned under a good reflector and enough room between them so there is absolutely no overshadowing.

If you don't understand how there will always be shading from the thick bush, I can't help you change your thought process.

Please correct me, but the more stuff you add, like clones AND seeds, the more variables you will have to deal with, and the less valid the results will be.

Also, a run from seed is an abolute no go. It would render all data gathered irrelelevant. each plant will be a diff. pheno, allowing seeds in this test is basically the biggest variable you can add to the setup in my opinion.

looking forward to this my friends !

Look above to my response on the seed question. This was taken into account. Moreso to allow those that wish to participate but don't have the clones presently available. Also the reason a clearly stated more plants to reduce variance would be needed. We don't have to nit it up that much do we?

 

[Arminius]

My Proposed Setup for Side by Side

My Proposed Setup for Side by Side

Here is the room that I would run my side by side.

There is about 2 more weeks for this room to be clear of plants.
I have 16 untopped OG Headcheese (Deadhead OG x UK Cheese), in veg. I have only taken the largest of the fans as they vegged. I will pick 8 tonight to pluck even more fans, which will allow them to recover before being loaded into the flower room.
The 8 along the walls I will leave alone, the rest will be plucked per my method of gradual plucking throughout flower.
All plants will get equal light, with no shading due to the vertical lighting.
All will be fed Jack's, in 2 gal airpots, drain to waste.

 

[Payaso]

The key to a successful experiment is simplicity.

I have read all your suggestions and distilled this from that information.

Cannabis Fan Leaf Removal Experiment

The purpose is to determine whether or not removing fan leaves from cannabis plants increases yeild, or not.

It is important to perform a trial (experiment) with the independent variable at a special setting for comparison with the other trials. This trial is referred to as a control group. The control group consists of all those trials where you leave the independent variable in its natural state. In our example, it would be important to run some trials in which the plants have no leaves removed at all (except for naturally dead or dying leaves). These trials with no defoliation provide a basis for comparison, and insure that any changes you see between crop yields are in fact caused by the defoliation and not something else.

A little advance preparation can ensure that your experiment will run smoothly and that you will not encounter any unexpected surprises at the last minute. You will need to follow the detailed experimental procedure for your experiment so you can ensure consistency from beginning to end. Think about it as a recipe for your experiment. This also makes it much easier for someone else to test your experiment if they are interested in seeing how you got your results.

Experiment and Control groups are a duplicate set of plants, grown under basically the same conditions with only one variable in this case, defoliation of fan leaves.

Your groups can be any size from one plant to a suggested maximum of three plants in each group. More are allowed if you have the space and inclination to run such a large-scale experiment.

You will need:
Minimum two identical clones from the same mother in the same grow medium, and same type of environment as the other. Separate tents or grow rooms are allowed, but must be identical in terms of lighting, ventilation, temperature and nutrients. All usage of other chemicals for pests and diseases should be noted in the weekly reports.

To compete, you must post at least weekly through the grow cycle, and show us in photos how things are looking.

Because foliated and defoliated plants might mature and flower at different rates and times, this may result in different finishing times, which should be reported and documented for the experiment.

Whatever techniques you grow with are not the point, the point is the fan leaf removal and how it affects the finished product. You may defoliate all-at-once, as growing progresses, or just before harvest. I have seen all three used locally. That would be a different experiment with a different set of variables.

Final step in the experiment is to bring your girls to harvest, and weigh the crop. As time is not so important in this application, I would suggest (if possible) weighing your harvest after trimming.

Voting will be by public poll when all entrants have finished their grows and posted all the results.

In the scientific world they generally run an experiment at least three times before making any conclusions. Here I suggest using at least three plants for each – the control group and the variable (defoliated) group.

There will be a very special prize for the winner (which should be judged by the voters on ability to run an experiment and documentation thereof), and we will feature this as a major article in a forthcoming future edition of the International Cannagraphic eMagazine.

 

[Payaso]

If this is ok as a basic framework we can start the contest... please let me know your thoughts!

 

[Bassy59]

Just a thought.....

Test guy A yields 36z from his defoliated grp and 26z from his non.

But Test guy B yields near equal amounts from his grp. However, he gets more votes. So he wins? Looks to me more like a popularity contest or one for the staunch supporters of non defoliation whom can surely out number those that use this technique.

Imho, either a grp of 3 from each camp and 1 unbiased would be more fair. If not that, I'd say let the icmag folks, admins etc decide as a grp in an unbiased manner.

There's just been so much opinion and outright screams of no way, not possible from the non defoliators camp even in the light of evidence from growers, I can't see how a poll would be the way to go.

Edit: many over the last three years that have never done this have gotten pretty emotional about how it's not possible to grow a good plant doing this.

 

[Crooked8]

What about separate lights? Someone who only runs one light cannot effectively do this experiment imo. Unless they only do two plants under the light itself and they couldn't be very big or close to each other. The distance from the light to the plants needs to be identical. If one plant is closer to the center of a hood and one plant is on the outside that completely throws everything off. This is why i suggested two lights full of plants of the same strain that have been vegged equal time and on the same nutes with the same training. I dunno, i just think one light of defoliated plants vs one light of unmolested plants will give us the closest thing to real conclusions.

 

[Bassy59]

What about separate lights? Someone who only runs one light cannot effectively do this experiment imo. Unless they only do two plants under the light itself and they couldn't be very big or close to each other. The distance from the light to the plants needs to be identical. If one plant is closer to the center of a hood and one plant is on the outside that completely throws everything off. This is why i suggested two lights full of plants of the same strain that have been vegged equal time and on the same nutes with the same training. I dunno, i just think one light of defoliated plants vs one light of unmolested plants will give us the closest thing to real conclusions.

Extremely important for this type of testing imho.

 

[Payaso]

Read what I said...

same type of environment

Not the same light.

 

[Payaso]

And for clarification, you want to vote on who had the biggest difference in yield between the two variable groups?

Or perhaps I should get an UNBIASED independent celebrity judge to make a decision?

Voting is important to the 'contest' but not necessarily to the experiment

 

[yortbogey]

oh boy a celebrity judge sounds fun.....

 

[Crooked8]

Hey didn't mean to bug you with my two light comment. I did read your post and i gathered that it could be one light and environment or two light and two environments that are identical. Leaving it up to the person to choose whether or not they do one light or more. If someone tries this with one light it will make for a difficult experiment to get real results from. Not saying its impossible just less effective at getting the results i think people are looking for.

 

[papaduc]

At the end of the day, people are going to judge for themselves the integrity of the tests and the value of the findings.

The whole notion of people being biased towards this or that... essentially match-fixing lol.... I mean what's the point of even debating it?

I think the results and the tests will speak for themselves and I trust the people reading will be casting their vote based on whose test they gleaned the most from.

 

[Payaso]

Okay, I pondered this overnight and here is my suggestion for voting...

NO VOTING.

Anyone who enters and completes the experiment will be a prize winner... I am beginning to think we may have just a few entrants, and the results will be clear.

Your thoughts?

I'd like to set this free and open this week so folks can get started whenever. I would suggest a finish date for this contest no more than 16 weeks out... would that be enough time?

 

[yortbogey]

thats even better.... it redefines the contest as being about truth, and results.....
NOT votes, and politic's.....Superb ~idea~indeed....

not even a contest, but a growing concept, that deserves the truth, right or wrong, good or bad, our members deserve to know, whats up.... and these efforts... will help bring us closer to these findings.....

fun time indeed

 

[papaduc]

Okay, I pondered this overnight and here is my suggestion for voting...

NO VOTING.

Anyone who enters and completes the experiment will be a prize winner... I am beginning to think we may have just a few entrants, and the results will be clear.

Your thoughts?

I'd like to set this free and open this week so folks can get started whenever. I would suggest a finish date for this contest no more than 16 weeks out... would that be enough time?

You know what Payaso, I don't even know if I can take part in the competition itself within that timescale. And as long as the thread stays open, it doesn't even bother me. I'll be watching with interest.

Although it's a fantastic incentive, the prize and winning a competition is nothing to do with why I'll be experimenting and documenting the results in the first place, just as it was nothing to do with why I was supporting the idea that more people should do side by sides in the last thread.

It would be fantastic to be involved, but if I can't quite make it in that time, I still have every intention of doing the side by side exactly as I would if I was in the competition anyway.

Yortbogey, you're on the money. It's not about entering a competition, it's about entering a test.

 

[Payaso]

So what time scale are you thinking ? Suggestions ?